Disney Decides To Stop Selling "Dive In" Panties For Young Girls

Gee, someone wasn’t thinking too clearly when they were designing High School Musical 2 themed panties for Disney. Sold in the UK, one pair of panties in a package of 5 read “Dive In” — a reference to a scene from the popular musical.

From the Daily Mail:

Mrs Ralph, 57, a civil servant, said: ‘I bought the packet of five multi-coloured knickers. Because they are in a packet, you can’t see the writing “Dive In” on them.

‘I was extremely shocked when I saw what was on them and I don’t believe Disney or anyone else is so stupid not to realise the implications of the wording they chose.

‘You let your children watch all these programmes, which are innocent and nice.

‘But the merchandising that runs alongside them is the complete opposite. It’s sexually suggestive, inappropriate and wholeheartedly wrong in some cases.

Disney has issued the following statement:

“Unfortunately, an oversight was made and the text on the underwear was used out context,” Disney said in a statement. “This product will not be part of any forthcoming collections and the remaining product has been removed from shelves.”

I don’t get it. If they’re for young (presumably 9 and under) girls, who is looking at their panties??? Does this crazy person think that’s the kind of thing that would drive a pedo over the edge?

I don’t see a 7 year old, under the kind of hypersensitive “parenting” this woman is using, understanding that there might be any sexual implications from the phrase. If she does know, shouldn’t the mother have a dialog with her daughter rather than a media-grab?

As a Mom of 4 girls, I think “Mrs. Ralph” needs to get a grip! Good grief, I wonder if she disallows “bit a honey” candy in her home,too- because someone might think it descibes her daughter- AAGGGGGHHHHH! I’d consider this a “1” on my offensive meter- her reaction is the funniest thing of all.

@brother9: I don’t think the idea is that someone who has the girl’s pants off and thinking “should I, or maybe not?” is literally going to see it and think “Dive in!” The woman is probably more outraged by the general inappropriateness of the sentiment.

Mrs. Ralph, you’re the one with your mind in the gutter. “It’s sexually suggestive, inappropriate and wholeheartedly wrong in some cases.” If you look hard enough, there are double entendres in most everything

People are offended over the craziest things. A white politician apologized to a black civil servant for calling some local government office a “black hole.” In no way was that racist, it meant that problems, complaints, issues, etc. go in, and in the bureaucratic mess they get sucked in and never come out or get resolved. In no way was it racially motivated. The African Americans who think they have the monopoly on when it’s okay to say “black” even outside a racial context piss me off. Sometimes it can be considered a double entendre, but there is such a thing as reading too much into something.

Several years ago in OKC I was sitting in the supermarket parking lot waiting on my wife, and some mom and her 8-year old girl show up to load their SUV. Embroidered & sequined on the ass of the 10-year old girl (short shorts) was *HOTTIE* (asterisks = actually stars). If a lot of moms are really oblivious to their prepubescent daughters turning into Rollergirl then who can be surprised at this Disney faux.

and people went back and forth as to the appropriateness of this message after Walmart pulled them from stores. I don’t understand putting messages on any panties. I don’t get why a young girls’ crotch requires reading material to begin with.

This is like those sweatpants that teenagers wear that say “Juicy” across the butt. What exactly are we supposed to make of that?

@AirIntake: Dirve in… I like it. Well, it’s funny at least. Is there a reason though that girls panties need cute messages? Do they occupy themselves at slumber parties by playing “Guess what my panties say”? Textless is fine, people!

On an aside, these products seem meant for younger girls, which begs the question, who’s going to see that would care? The girl? Her mom?

I’m sort of perturbed by how many people think this is totally not an issue, based largely on “no one will see a little kid’s underpants”. I mean…what if the underwear had a definitely explicit sexual message on them? What if they were Alice In Wonderland-themed and said “Eat me”? It’s not the thought that people might possibly see them on a child, it’s the thought in the first place of putting anything innuendo-ish on clothing – whether it be outerwear or underwear – for a child. I don’t think the folks at Disney made these with the aim of being perverted, but the fact that it didn’t occur to anyone there that it maybe wasn’t right is what creeps me out.

No need to totally stop production of the product or throw away the thousands they’ve probably already produced, just sell them to stores like Spencer’s or something. These would definitely make a ‘classy’ gift.

@MercuryPDX: Believe you me, I’m definitely no prude, but somehow, I don’t think it takes a whole lot of long, hard looking to see the hidden message implied when one writes “Dive in!” on the crotch of a girl’s panties.

@spryte: Very well said. It is a little disturbing to think that some think that this is ok.

On a complete sidenote, don’t let your kids wear clothing with words on them! I can’t stand watching young women strut around with Pink on their asses. That is loungewear…not outside wear. Let’s start teaching girls style and class.

This is like candy cigarettes. It reinforces an image. In retrospect, I find candy cigarettes appalling because smoking is gross (and they weren’t even that good).

So I think the point behind the complaint is that mass-market sexualization keeps targeting a younger and younger crowd. Today, she’s wearing “Dive in!” knickers, tomorrow she’s a sorostitute. They’ve tapped the college crowd. Teens are in on it too. In the interest of broadening the market, now they’re going after the children with oblivious parents. Corrupt them while they’re young and impressionable. It makes your work easier later.

And that if Mrs Ralph had known she was buying her daughter something that said “Dive in!” should wouldn’t have done it. That’s fair enough.

@krom: That’s not how it works. Generally, the designs are done in the US, they must then be approved by the licensor before they can be manuafcatured. A sample then is made for the retailer to approve. Once those approvals are done, it goes to the off-shore manufacturing.

As the Disney statement says, the graphic has been taken out-of-context.

@MercuryPDX: Are the actresses running around with “Dive in” on their panties? Are the actresses 9 years old? On a pair of panties meant for a kid, that statement is not appropriate. On a t-shirt with a surfer design, completely different story. And if you think that 7-9 year olds in this day and age do not know the difference, you are fooling yourself.

It is nice and pleasant to think of childhood as innocence and goodness, but that is not the case anymore. Kids are alot more advanced than we ever were as children. And that is the adults fault. Because of this “advancement”, we should protect children. Children are sexualized enough, especially little girls, without having to have “dive in” on their panties. Because, in the off chance that they don’t know what it is insinuating, one of their friends will and will fill them in. Let the vicious teasing (“you like boys” or whatnot) begin.

Why do you think that a 39 year old seeing Vanessa Hudgens and Zac Effron dancing is a sexual invitation? Are they in their underwear dancing? Are they naked? Dancing has nothing to do with sex. My god, I am in my thirties and that would have never crossed my mind.

These are little girl panties? Then who in Hades are going to see the writing on the panties? Mommy, maybe Daddy and Uncle Perv if he is lucky (or little girl is unlucky). Pretty much means that Uncle Perv, if he is viewing the writing on the panties, is all ready where he don’t belong and a wee little bit of writing is going to neither encourage nor discourage his further explorations. For all practical purposes the panties could say “x%&# me” and it would be totally meaningless because nobody with a sexual though in their mind is going to see the message.

“That’s exactly what I meant. A 9 year old sees “Zac Effron and Vanessa Hudgens dancing”…. a 39-year old sees “sexual invitation”.”

Maybe I should have phrased it “AS a sexual invitation”.

I haven’t seen the movie and have no intention to but I pretty much guessed that they were not 9 years old. My point was that there is a difference between an adult with “dive in” on their panties (which at this point there isn’t) and a kid.

@TomCruisesTesticles:I totaly agree with you man. and you kno what the funny thing is that african americans in my school think they own the word CRACKER now too (in all contexts, in some cases even discribing the food) I half white and half hispanic and I’m not easly offended at terms that my be durrogitory to the fact that i am part mexican. whay cant everyone be like that?@MercuryPDX: true, had this issue not been brought to my attention i would have not thought twice about the “suggustive panties”. someone elses may have seen it and had it fit(like this over concerned mother in the artical) or got hot. though now that i know its kindof funny espcialy beacuse at first it looked like drive in….lol

@spryte: I cant wait to have kids so that I can let them be desensitized to everything because, belive it or not, that’s part of being a kid. Nothing matters, its parents that are like the police telling them “Come of the roof RIGHT NOW!” or “Take that out of her or I’m calling your dad”

The “Eat me” metaphor is a bad one because under this same theory, taking your kid to see any Pixar or Dreamworks film is a bad idea because thye are filled with enuendo that’s way too inappropriate for kids, but guess what? It goes right over thier head, yes even the head of your 6 year old baby einstein genious and if it doesnt, then you’ve probably already failed as a parent. Sucks to be you (I dont mean you personally, more general).

@Shadowfire: I could so top that, but it would result in an immediate banning from all of the internets. Roz can do that ya know.

How about this, I’ll give you another less harsh one but disemvowel it myself: f t blds it brds

First, why are small children watching a movie about high school kids? The movie was made for teens, why do parents let their young children watch it? Why is Disney marketing items to small children based on a movie with a teenage target audience?

Second, little kids love to have things written on their underwear. Boys like to have Superman, Spiderman or Thomas the Tank Engine, etc., including phrases from those programs. Girls love Tinkerbell, Disney princesses and Barbie on their panties, including phrases from the movies. They are kids, they like that kind of crap. It doesn’t have to say “I’m a whore!” or “Grab my junk!” There’s no reason to stop putting words on kid’s underwear, as long as what is there is age appropriate.

Third, I don’t know where some of you live or your kids go to school, but my 7-year old girl wouldn’t have any idea there could possibly be a suggestion that the phrase “dive in” could have anything to do with her vagina. If your kid would, you might need to rethink your parenting choices, because you have bigger problems than what your kid’s underwear says on it.

Finally, the phrase isn’t on the crotch of the panties, it’s at the top. If it were literally on the crotch, I might have a problem with it, otherwise, I don’t really. I do have a problem with companies/stores marketing thongs to preteens, that’s just wrong.

I watched this movie with my 18 year old, 14 year old and 7 year old daughters and 6 of their friends- ALL were equally excited. There is NOTHING innappropriate in this movie- it is a rated G, fun movie that can be enjoyed by all ages, and our group included one as young as 5. I don’t think Disney marketed it specifically to teens, and you don’t have to be a teen to enjoy it.@HFC:

1. Evil flying monkey with a tie thinks, “we need a full clothing line to squeeze more money from this franchise.”

2. Evil flying monkey with an unbuttoned collar puts song names or chorus lines on everything. He does so as stylishly as an evil flying monkey wearing a, “see me? I’m a stereotypical creative type,” shirt can. Obviously, using an Apple.

3. Evil flying money with a checklist says, “Same phrase as on everything else. Pass.” Secretly, he wants to go back to the good old days of harassing munchkins.

6. Evil flying monkey with unbuttoned collar, and the one with the checklist, both wonder how on Earth they’re supposed to think of these things before they hit shelves. When they see them, it’s colored cloth with a logo. When they think of girls wearing them, they realize they have no task away from home that needs doing the next time one of their wives agrees to host a sleepover.

During an afternoon delousing, they decide that Evil flying monkey with unbuttoned collar needs some work done on his truck (wasn’t it better when they just flew where they needed to, carrying sacks?), and evil flying monkey with a checklist needs needs help choosing new home theater equipment (OK, they never could had that, before). They also talk nostalgically of when they were led by a real wicked witch, with green skin and a pointy hat. Masculine excuses taken care of, they manage to design, then approve, another product just like this by this time next year. Mrs. Ralph’s thoughts never cross their minds.

9. Not buying Disney branded clothes, anymore, Mrs. Ralph never sees the new one. We don’t read about it. The public never catches on to Disney paying a vet for their clothing design team’s health care plan.

10. Eisner has a bucket poured out on him, and melts (*sigh* I can dream, can’t I?)

This speaks to me of prudishness on Mrs. Ralph’s part. I’d have seen this and just walked on by. Given that the simplest way across Walmart is by the girls underwear (also by the DVDs, CDs, video games, and HD TVs), and the whole section is saturated with Disney, I may have.

Oh, crap. I admitted I go to Walmart. :P

@spryte: this is some tag line from a Disney franchise, with obvious “innocent” context. The response would be different if it were, say, the Rolling Stones logo.

@Wormfather is Wormfather: yeah, I didn’t even think of that. Go watch Pee Wee’s show. I saw a few episodes when they had on Adult Swim for awhile. After about ten minutes of the first one, I no longer wondered why it was on Adult Swim.

[Send your] daughters to school with no panties at all… nothing wrong with that unless your mind is in the gutter eh.

Strawman, maybe appeal to emotion?

To think that the decision makers at Disney who authorized the design didn’t realize there could be another context to the wording is ignorance.

I’m sure they could have. Anyone could have. But, could not it also be that we could see ourselves making similar oversights (it is being presented to them with many other products with similar things on them, and the reviewer will be familiar with the content they refer to, providing context), and as such, aren’t willing to demonize the guys at Disney in this way? They still deserve to be demonized as a whole, of course.

But as long as mothers refuse to believe they are turning their daughters into [whores?] and try to justify everything, consumer purchases will just keep these products on the shelf.

Hard to pin this one down. “As long as…” makes me lean to false cause, maybe with a pinch of judgmental speech. But, then, there’s more, because it’s a false cause to a consequence is falsely bundled in with the article’s subject. Hmmm.

Go to an jr high graduation and you can plainly see that young girls dressed like street hookers often have mothers dressed there the same.

Plain old red herring (it is related to High School Musical clothing…how?).